W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > February 2011

Minutes of the 2011-02-17 LLD meeting

From: Uldis Bojars <captsolo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:03:20 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyoUx1K6sRKyTmY=nVzAMhCMZM8dbMQUf5CCfN@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>

The minutes of our today's call are at

A text version follows.




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                LLD XG

17 Feb 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0035.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-lld-irc


          Jodi, uldis, TomB, kai, kcoyle, antoine_, jeff_, marcia?,
          kefo, edsu, rsinger, pmurray, AlexanderH, jneubert, Jon,
          digikim, Felix, michaelp

          Emmanuelle, Monica, Gordon, Ray




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]LOD-LAM Summit: http://lod-lam.net/ - Guest: Jon Voss
         2. [6]ADMIN
         3. [7]USE CASE CLUSTERS
         4. [8]FINAL REPORT DRAFT
         5. [9]FINAL REPORT TOPICS
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   <TomB> Previous:

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html

   joining in a minute

   <jodi> wow, today I am the first participant :)

   <TomB> Scribe: uldis

   <TomB> Scribenick: uldis

LOD-LAM Summit: [12]http://lod-lam.net/ - Guest: Jon Voss

     [12] http://lod-lam.net/

   Jon: will tell about the LOD-LAM summit. how it came about, goals.
   ... was working on Civil War data. were pitching it as LOD for
   ... catch-22: funding vs use cases
   ... reviewers were split in opinion. needed to define issues, define
   what is LOD (for the founders)

   <TomB> Jon: We needed to make the case to our funders.

   Jon: put together a proposal. ... fundation joined. travel support,
   international participants.
   ... hope to have as many as 75 people attending
   ... goals: get all together, use open-space format (BarCamp),
   participants make own agenda
   ... people experts in field, passionated. from many areas.
   ... questions?

   kcoyle: what can we do to help?

   Jon: main thing is spreading the word. already had 56 applicants.
   great diversity.
   ... also policymakers, who can open the doors to have datasets

   TomB: you mentioned looking for use cases. that's what LDD XG has
   been doing.
   ... re benefits of using linked data, problems, bottlenecks
   ... the timing of the summit is when our group will have published
   its report

   Jon: that's perfect. we're trying to get a better idea of what the
   participants have to bring to the meeting.

   antoine_: wondering if we could focus discussion on issues that LLD
   XG would have identified as open problems

   Jon: that's something we can do at the summit.
   ... interested in going from talking re standards to implementing
   them as use cases
   ... another part of summit is to invite funders to talk re what they
   want to see

   <Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about openness and linked data

   edsu: could you comment re role of openness in the meeting?
   ... LOD combines 2 things: linked data pattern + open access to data
   ... how important is the openness?

   Jon: in order to have LOD, have to have open data first
   ... on the organizing committee people from CC, EFF, MIT -- who are
   working on openness
   ... hope to have legal experts, policy makers present. to set
   precedents for people to release data, have it open and sharable

   TomB: could you comment re role of the Internet Archive & the
   preservation aspect of linked data

   Jon: IA is the host for this. working very closely together. they
   are loooking very closely at linked data.

   <edsu> antoine_: nice, i heard about some of that in

     [13] http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GLAMWIKI_UK_Fri_26_11.45_BP_-_Jill_Cousins.ogg

   Jon: they're very interested in being involved

   TomB: more questions? no. thanks to Jon for joining us.

   <marcia> thanks to Jon


   RESOLUTION: to accept

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html

   TomB: checking w W3C re reserving Zakim at a very late hour

   <jodi> midnight EST is fine here in Ireland! :)

   TomB: for having a meeting dedicated to Asia-Pacific time zone


   jeff_: ready to let people comment re authority data

   <antoine_> ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data
   cluster for end of December [recorded in
   tes.html#action06] [DONE]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06

   jodi: social uses cluster: got new use cases
   ... have other ideas from JISC, etc that we want to look at

   <antoine_> ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
   [recorded in
   tes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03

   kcoyle: can' t exactly say where are re collection cluster

   <scribe> ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster
   [recorded in
   tes.html#action11] [DONE]

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11

   <jodi> yeah! :)

   kevin: looking at combining documents. need another week to see
   which clusters have webservice related things

   <antoine_> ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing
   clusters to see where the web service dimension could be
   strengthened. [recorded in
   tes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13


   TomB: we have a draft report. Jodi created draft with transclusions.

   <jodi> It is here:

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion

   TomB: lots of sections in use case clusters that need to be
   consolidated into sections we haven't started yet

   <scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to
   the list [recorded in
   tes.html#action14] [DONE]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14

   <scribe> ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with
   transclusion code [recorded in
   tes.html#action04] [DONE]

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04


   TomB: propose to add names to these 8 topics
   ... 1) What to do with the use cases themselves?
   ... cluster texts include scenarious = intermediate steps. what
   should we do with them. put in the final report (e.g. appendix)
   ... thinking re appendix w one-line summary of use cases and bullet
   points from scenarios
   ... q: is this a good idea? 'd like someone to volunteer.

   kcoyle: sent an email before meeting. use cases should not be in the
   document. we are not certain they cover important LOD issues
   ... we need to discuss those issues - the fact lib cataloging uses
   text, net data. large amount of this info already out there. no
   support from big institutions.

   TomB: how should we handle use cases? agree they are not part of the
   report itself.
   ... or are you saying use cases are deficient?

   <antoine_> @kcoyle: isn't this issue related to "problems and

   kcoyle: an appendix listing use cases ++
   ... we must extract info from them to put in the report. what the
   use cases tell us about the environment
   ... report has to extract those important issues
   ... the appendix = some info we drew our conclusions from

   TomB: task is not difficult. to look at how to make an appendix.

   antoine_: some things can be independent from use cases

   kcoyle: don't know. we have not had a discussion re the big issues.

   <jodi> I think we know a lot about the issues, even though we
   haven't formally discussed

   kcoyle: what is group's thinking re this?

   <jodi> (this was also an interesting part from the youtube video Tom
   sent yesterday -- a good discussion of issues)

   antoine_: we have a placeholder in the report re this

   <Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about editors for the document

   <jodi> browseability and visualization, particularly, are issues we
   may not have much discussed

   edsu: agree w kcoyle. we have not talked re big issues.
   ... have concerns re concentrating only on use cases.

   <jodi> +1 to whole-document editors

   edsu: need to identify editors for the [whole] document. they can
   then propose how they want to see the report.
   ... legacy data is one of important topics, as kcoyle wrote

   <antoine_> isn't what ed is talking about finding editors for
   nd_limitations , specifically?

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport#Problems_and_limitations

   <jodi> TomB++ : complexity of the whole is making it hard to
   understand what's important

   <antoine_> @TomB: can we start with point #5? Seems popular :-)

   <jodi> @antoine: what is point #5?

   <kcoyle> it's problems and limitation

   TomB: 1) was re moving details of use cases into an appendix. to
   help us to focus on big issues.

   <kcoyle> and i do think we need to start there

   TomB: 5) Getting a start on Problems and Limitations (section 1.5)

   <jodi> ah, points from the review list. Thanks! :)

   TomB: need someone to read problems / limitations part of use cases
   and propose how to merge them

   <kcoyle> i don't think this is a one-person task. i think it's a
   task for the whole group

   <jodi> I think there's already a good start on this, from what Karen
   did with summarizing the problems/limitations from the (archives?)

   TomB: trying to break up tasks. anything we don't need in the final
   report can be moved to a "parking lot".
   ... aim to have a document that has the analytical parts, not the

   <jodi> I can read problems/limitations of the use cases and see what
   the common ones are. I don't know about 'proposing how to merge

   TomB: volunteers?
   ... proposed that chairs assign volunteers.

   kcoyle: you 're trying to work from details up
   ... some of use willing to work from top (main issues) down

   <marcia> The previous 'dimensions' page might be a good way to look
   at the limitations and problems.

   kcoyle: hard to work from details because i don't understand the
   ... you are starting with details.

   <edsu> +1

   kcoyle: why don't we start w the report, add details as needed
   ... not happy with the existing document.
   ... start with thinking re what we want to have in the report
   ... before starting writing

   <Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about editors

   edsu: on last call i was against the transclusion. TomB, kcoyle both
   right. a question of a work approach.
   ... would like to have people own an action to write this document
   ... and for them to take 1st pass at writing something
   ... then iterate
   ... and bring in detailed content later.
   ... starting from individual pieces and trying to merge them
   together can make the report fragmentary

   TomB: these tasks were on assumption of consensus re starting to
   work on the long document
   ... happy to start w a short document and add things in
   ... could ask people to read all manuscripts, extract key ideas
   (benefits, limitations, relevant technologies)
   ... willing to act as an editor for the document as a whole
   ... but it's a big task.

   <kcoyle> we all have to generate ideas -- the group

   TomB: who will generate ideas for big picture items?
   ... need people to step up

   jodi: re approaches top-down vs bottom-up
   ... was horrified re results of transclusion. a lot of information
   there. more info in people's heads.
   ... by stripping it down we may loose parts that are interesting,
   ... can we work from both directions at once?
   ... need a very rough draft at the executive summary
   ... a good place to start. each has some main messages in mind.
   ... not ignore what we have, but jumpstart discussion by putting
   together some text

   <kefo> jodi++ : begin with a type of lengthy abstract. outline base
   points of longer report, develop more detailed document from the
   executive report

   <TomB> a?

   jodi: must have the grand message from the group

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to clarify that "topic curators" should not
   limit themselves to things they read in the raw draft

   <edsu> +1 for starting w/ executive summary, and then see what else
   is needed

   TomB: starting with the executive summary = interesting idea

   <kcoyle> or at least a list of issues

   <jodi> +1 for getting text we can react to

   TomB: we need a text that we can react to

   <jodi> (maybe that's the problem with the curated use cases --
   there's no "argument" being made, just description)

   TomB: would like people to see take ownership of topics (e.g. 5)
   problems and limitations)
   ... propose to learn from what we have, but also to put down things
   we have in our head
   ... writing exec summary as a first step can be useful (though
   usually done last)

   kcoyle: propose all to put main 5 issues into email

   <edsu> kcoyle: love that idea

   kcoyle: then discuss those groups of issues and see where we go from

   <antoine_> Issues in the line of
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed ??

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed

   <jodi> kcoyle: great idea!

   kcoyle: use email for discussion. start without structure.
   ... just list 5 main things we have seen come out from our work

   TomB: propose distinction b/w things we see as most important and
   things [maybe not most important] that are of concern to us
   ... lot of richness may come from ideas which are not most important
   but which we find a interesting
   ... are any of the 8 points that we can salvage and start with the
   brainstorming approach?
   ... opinions?

   <antoine_> Is there objection on the other points?

   TomB: .silence.

   <jodi> +1 to calling on people :)

   <rsinger> why?

   <rsinger> can we assume there's no objection?

   TomB: jodi?

   <rsinger> or ambivalence?

   <TomB> Uldis: +1 brainstorming approach

   jodi: we could salvage some points, but there's something vivid and
   lively re brainstorming

   TomB: this could be a good way to get to the next step
   ... what all thing re proposed brainstorming approach?
   ... kai +1

   <marcia> yes

   marcia: +1

   antoine_: +1 we try it. still think we must consider the other

   <kcoyle> +1

   antoine_: look at relevant technologies and other things we don't
   need extensive brainstorming on

   <jodi> +1 to looking at a few other points as well

   <kcoyle> we could identify parts that we could do now

   TomB: agree re that

   jeff_: agree re starting from executive summary as a start

   kefo: along the way we will identify problems and limitations.
   things like 4) re analysis of library standards will find natural

   edsu: +1

   rsinger: like the idea. but how are we gonna manage 100+ points
   people will come up.
   ... especially in email.

   <jodi> agree that management of this is challenging -- but I think
   that makes this more useful rather than less

   <jodi> kcoyle++

   TomB: can cluster them quickly in email.

   <kefo> I think broad topics will rise to the top

   kcoyle offered to organize them

   pmurray: nothing to add

   AlexanderH: concern re management of collected info

   jneubert: +1

   digikim: ...

   fsasaki: ...

   <digikim> ah sorry - doing n+2 other things while listening

   <kcoyle> I will start the email so there is something to follow-up

   <michaelp> I would urge people to look at topic list and minutes of
   Pittsburgh for ideas/preparation.

   <kcoyle> thanks, mp

   <edsu> kcoyle++

   TomB: ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email message
   in the next week about important issue
   ... kcoyle offered to kick it off

   <jodi> link to topic list and minutes for Pittsburgh:

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh

   <kcoyle> put on our thinking caps

   <kefo> bye

   <jodi> thanks, this was quite useful!

   <michaelp> I think Pittsburgh had some great big picture

   <TomB> [adjourned]

   <scribe> ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email
   message in the next week re brainstorming on important issues
   [recorded in

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email message
   in the next week re brainstorming on important issues [recorded in

   [PENDING] ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing
   clusters to see where the web service dimension could be
   strengthened. [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
   [recorded in

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03

   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to
   the list [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster
   [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster
   for end of December [recorded in
   [DONE] ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with
   transclusion code [recorded in

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([36]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/02/17 19:36:36 $

     [35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:03:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC